So what's the story with the new cooperative multi-player feature?

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Tebriel

Captain
75 Badges
Aug 6, 2007
358
174
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Knights of Honor
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines
I've only seen one vague mention of this in one article. Do we know what "aspects" of the same nation players will be able to divide up? I assume they'll be dynamic so that control can be shifted around in real time.

I've been wishing that it was possible to have other players control specific theatres/fronts or overall nation management while another manages other aspects of the game like research/production and assigning combat resources to each theatre. The 35 player limit (if it works) and cooperative mode sounds promising, but with so little information (I can find) about this specifically, is it actually going to happen?

While this has the potential to be the most innovative online/multiplayer feature since say, the original Neverwinter Nights game, I'm a little skeptical as it sounds too good to be true.
 
EU IV has this feature and appears to let both players play any aspect of the country, so they could sort it out among themselves, splitting functional aspects of government and military operations. Coop within a country is my favorite way to play, especially with a clock ticking. Miscommunications and lack of coordination are possible, but that is realistic enough, isn't it?
 
I think HOI3 has this, too. It opens up for some interesting possibilities, like several players each controlling a German Army Group while invading the Soviet Union, or players dividing up branches among themselves (one controlling army, one navy, one air force). But I don't know, don't think I'll use it myself.
 
Well it would be nice to have different players of the same nation take care of different fronts.

I.e. one player could be "Eisenhower" and take care of the European theatre and a second player could be "Mac Arthur" (or "Nimitz") and take care of the Pacific theatre. this could lead to different dynamics, especially if you have athird player which has to take care of research, production etc.
 
Are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about assigning individual (exclusive) control over very specific parts of the game, usually theatres but also possibly different aspects of nation running. If you hate research, assign it to someone else just like you can assign to the AI. Players would be very dynamic and could change roles, even between nations or to the other side (if enabled in host settings).

HecNev is describing what I meant, which I imagine would need to be very fluid and would need to have some supporting interfaces just to make the communication manageable. Since you may have dozens of players with multiple people playing for your nation, even with a voice chat it'd be too much chaos.

Player A as Churchill, player B as Montgomery. Monty gets deployed to Egypt, gets control of that theatre (just as if you set it to AI control). Player B has a command interface where he can request reinforcements from player A (visually within the UI, with text comments to justify the need as a real commander would do), release forces to other theatres, coodinate battle plans with other players, and so on. It could be structured realistically, such that you have land, air, and naval commanders which need to coordinate and work together, sharing battle plans and strategies (this battle plan feature I know is already in HOI3). Or you could give a single person control over all 3 types of units within a single geographic region. When one theatre expands into another, or one theatre is crushed by the enemy, that player would become a "free agent" and could be "hired" to run something else. Something sophisticated like this would require some thought and some UI interfaces just to facilitate, at least how I'm envisioning it. It opens up a new style of gameplay, with unofficial competing players on the same nation (they need to justify their requests and strategies) and competing micro-strategies.

Apparently though, I just read waaaaaay to much into a snippet I read somewhere, and I guess nothing more substantial like this is actually planned at all.
 
why these limitations? it has already been bad enough in HoI3 that some players have to control hundreds of units while others control tens of them. The earlier have to play at slow speed while most players in the game, playing minors, get bored. HoI2 was great in multiplayer because all players in the faction could control whatever they felt up to and according to the theatre, without a need for clunky HoI3 exp. force system. For example a player who was South Africa could control the whole African theatre, including units from all other Allied countries.

I see no reason why you would develop a system which would assign units, production, tech etc. among the players in a fixed way. Why not to allow everyone control all units within a faction and all players in a single country control production/tech/espionage etc. in that country? Is it so hard to reach consensus? Why limit yourself? If anything I would return back to military control system from HoI2 and further expand it so that a single player could for example control not only all faction units in a given theatre but also production or tech of all/some countries in the faction, depending on in-game role distribution. So there could be one player assigned to control let us say the Pacific theatre (US, UK, AUS units in the area) + control espionage of all Allies towards a common goal; and another player who would for example assume command of D-Day invasion + strategic bombing in Europe, using all Allied planes, and at the same time making sure that Allies research complementary techs and exchange knowledge. And these roles could dynamically change depending on the situation.

If you had let us say 10+ players in a single faction then formal interface could be useful. But there are not many MP games with 10+ players in a single faction, mostly due to technical and convenience reasons. It is already hard enough to make sure that 10 people total in the game are able to play at the same time and without crashes.

More than 2-3 players in a single country is redundant and I think 2 people can agree on role distribution without buttons saying what they can control. They are more flexible if both control everything. The problem with 4 and more people in a single country is that they have to have a single masterplan anyway and it is hard to make up and implement it with 4 and more people. The common result is that none of them takes the responsibility for the whole direction which is bad.
 
Last edited:
I don't think of it as limiting at all, if anything what I'm thinking would be more flexible and more powerful, with the option to tame the chaos you alluded to in your last paragraph. A more dynamic and formal multiplayer mode could be much, MUCH more flexible - get creative with it. Playing minors too boring? Let some players control multiple minor nations at the same time. Can't get 35 (the alleged max) players all together at the same time? (Of course you can't!) Let players join and leave dynamically or take over other roles dynamically (within reason, moderated by a host or hosts).

Specific control of a theatre or a single military branch prevents stuff like re-routing a navy or air wing from somewhere that a teammate badly needed in another location (for their plan). It simulates the internal military politics between military leaders we read about so often--just like in any military or even non-military real life situation, you have to justify the resources you're asking for. The central "grand plan" would still come from a main player/leader, who would have complete control to hire/fire or reassign players wherever needed for whatever purpose.

As the number of players increase I would say it can be extremely hard to gain consensus. I wouldn't rule out the ability to do as you describe either (let everyone control whatever they want in a free-for-all), but the lock-downs allow the primary players to ensure that there isn't chaos (without having 5 people trying to communicate at the same time via text or voice chat).

A "command interface" could visually facilitate (not replace) the minor planning details which would be far too much to communicate to the entire team. Ex. If you're requesting additional Luftwaffe support, it's a lot easier to use an in-game command interface to visually communicate to the lead player that you "need" (request) 3 tactical bombers and 2 fighters at X and Y airfields ASAP to prevent a Soviet breakthrough. It's the lead player's call as to whether the request should be granted--perhaps the need elsewhere is greater. The German southern commander doesn't need to hear all the chatter about reinforcements needed because the Eastern Front commander's army is encircled at Stalingrad while they're busy taking Egypt--that's the primary player's job to communicate and coordinate if needed, and so on.

If there was genuine interest (which I doubt, I'm sure Paradox has their feature set finished by now) I would try throwing together a graphical illustration of how such a system might look and function, but I think it's all moot since nothing remotely similar has been announced or planned. Does Paradox even consider such major suggestions for their games through the forums? :blink:
 
That is a pretty cool idea - you could even have mega 'coop' games where human players (3-8, say, for a nation with a lot of fronts Germany, the UK, Japan or the US) took on the AI (assuming the AI was decent enough) using that structure. We haven't heard anything about the feature so far, and it would need some UI work and networky stuff as well, but it could be a lot of fun :). As you say, if they don't have it planned for the game at this stage, I doubt it'd make release, but maybe an expansion if there was enough interest?
 
It could certainly be helpful if it worked in a way you have just envisioned - provided it would be possible to have working mp games with many people, like 15+ total. Unfortunately, the dysfunctional MP code, different other technicalities and schedules of people are usually more severe problems which limit the scale of the game more than an ability to command and distribute roles properly. My point was that communication is vital anyway because these games cannot properly work if you mechanically assign various branches and theatres to people without almost permanent consultations about the overall situation. But if it had been done in a flexible way (like being able to control multiple countries without having to launch the game multiple times at once; or being able to control a specific aspect across several countries) that it would be great. Nevertheless, players being used to each other is priceless in coop. I was once engaged in a 4-player GER coop and it was a disaster because there was a communication barrier and nobody wanted to commit to something serious because players were worried they could screw up and the others would blame them. Cutting the country into 4 spheres of control would make things even worse - without proper communication about what the goals are. Simply put, even an elaborate interface cannot fully make up for trust in a game where a single MP campaign can last for like 10x5 hour-session.
 
Yeah, the logistics of a large number of players in a game is a challenge. But there has to be some reason that HOI4 is supposed to "support" up to 35 players, based on what I read somewhere? I'm assuming that problem (and any other such as networking code bugs) is solvable here.

Perhaps if you had small HOI gaming groups/clubs (likely organized here) with players that often setup games together, some of those issues would be mitigated. (Sort of like a gaming clan/guild.)

Being concerned about screwing up is one reason I think this would be a good thing--since it's more of a team effort, it's harder to pin failure on one person. And if you're less experienced or worried about letting your teammates down, you can get your experience and confidence by playing a less important role. Of course, losing shouldn't be so bad either--someone has to lose these wars. My hope would be that the more tightly integrated teamwork aspect would make it fun even for the team on the losing side fighting a hopeless war together.

Of course for beginners there's still the option to play a nation that has no effect on the war at all, such as Italy (sorry Italians, that was a cheap shot and a lie :p).
 
Long time MP HOI3 gamer here and I have been in a 20 player game. What happens is you get 2 people on each faction leader and many on minors. Our game did have 3 players in Germany, including myself. We separated out the responsibilities early on and stuck to our assigned roles. We had over 1 hour meetings before each session so that we would act in a coordinated way. Planning was done by the person in charge of the given area, but because production was integral, many discussion resulted. All of this was required to coordinate 3 players that already trusted and knew each other very well. And we were all playing the same country. For the record: we did quite well that game.

Anyway, The biggest issues with MP games are the trust factors and the coordination of the team. People who are good leaders in their real lives and can bring people together in some sort of agreement are highly prized in games that involve multiple players per country.

Just arbitrarily separating out the roles to a bunch of people who are not well coordinated will result in a mess. If there is one leader watching over them, they better hope that he/she is a good leader and a people person and everyone should be willing to submit to this persons judgment. In a more competitive game, coordination is king!

All that said, I think MP is the only way to go, and more options can only make the game better.
 
But there has to be some reason that HOI4 is supposed to "support" up to 35 players

IIRC, HoI2 and HoI3 support up to 32 players. That does not mean the game is actually suitable for this number of people, due to both technical and time reasons. This is not a FPS where a match takes 5 minutes. The major issues have always been game stability and trust. As I said, ability to somehow formally (in-game interface) assign roles is secondary because important things have to be communicated informally anyway. The biggest game I was in was Kaiserreich multiplayer which peaked around 16 players. Shared military control of all players within a faction was great. Still do not understand why HoI3 got rid of that feature. Hopefully, HoI4 will include some form of cross-country control sharing (not cumbersome exp. force mechanics known from HoI3). Sharing and role division within a single country is not a problem IMO - complete shared control of all players cooping one country seems ok to me.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I don't doubt any of the above. This was something I was hoping would get some more design thought to help facilitate and make this communication & planning easier--not to magically do all the coordination and planning work that's needed to make a large MP game work. The core decision making would still be informal (and it's more efficient that way). Like I said above, this was aimed mostly at the smaller details and detailed resource management amongst the team.